Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context: validation is cheap compared to conversion, it returns a green/amber/red status, and it detects specific markdown features. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with well-structured, scannable sections for usage guidelines and return values. Every sentence provides distinct value—no filler, no repetition of schema fields, and the bulleted triggers are tightly written.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return payload (status, detected features, human-readable message). It also covers when to use the tool, what it catches, and why it matters financially, making it fully self-contained for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters (content and filename), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on output and usage context instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Pre-flight markdown validation BEFORE conversion', clearly identifying the tool's specific verb, resource, and timing. It lists exact failure modes it detects (malformed tables, unclosed code fences, broken task lists, unsupported syntax) and distinguishes it from conversion tools like convert_document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to call the tool proactively, with three concrete scenarios ('user is about to convert a long document', 'user reports broken output', 'you generated the markdown yourself'). It also contrasts validation cost with conversion cost, but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.